The Best D&D edition for me.
- Thread starter Newbznsn
- Start date
thanks bagger. I think someone asked earlier what i didn't like about the 3.5 basic starter game. first, it's too basic and limits your creativity. second, it lacks luster and excitement. third i don't like tile maps, id rather play without it. third, its very combat oriented. I just want to make sure that 3e modules aren't boring and heavily combat oriented. Also, is 3e compatible with 3.5?
Also, my friend used to play a little D&D 3.5 a while ago but forgot about it, he said that he played without miniatures and battlemats. I hope to use miniatures and battlemats only when needed in difficult scenarios.
Thanks
Nick
Also, my friend used to play a little D&D 3.5 a while ago but forgot about it, he said that he played without miniatures and battlemats. I hope to use miniatures and battlemats only when needed in difficult scenarios.
Thanks
Nick
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
3e and 3.5 are mostly different in the fine print - this can make a difference for classes, but not really for modules. You could try a conversion, but it's probably easier if you don't, and won't harm the game.
I think most D&D modules are pretty combat heavy, but I know mostly Paizo/Dungeon and WotC adventures. But that doesn't mean there isn't a lot to explore and a lot of NPCs to interact with. I think it's often a question on how much time you invest in this. Still, expect a lot of combats in each adventure - most of the XP gained in any module will come from combat encounters, I think.
The Dungeon adventure paths Shackled City(also available as hardcover), Age of Worms and Savage Tides are generally seen as of high quality (but even they are not without faults, but considering the cover levels 1-20, some flaws are to be expected). I also enjoyed Malhavoc Press Banewarren as a player.
The Pathfinder adventure Path from Paizo are also widely regarded as well done (no suprise, they also created the aforementioned adventure path).
Note that the DMs in my group are converting adventure paths like Savage Tides, Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne to D&D 4E because we got a little tired of 3E (and they find this easier then DMing the adventure as is with 3.5 rules).
Aus_Snow
First Post
Adventures here and there are not one, not the other, or even neither in some cases. But it also depends on what you mean by 'boring'. If 'heavily combat oriented' in fact implies boring, to you, then that will simplify matters. . . even if it doesn't make it easy to find a ton of suitable (and good) D&D adventures. Basically, *all* editions of D&D are 'heavily combat oriented', by default I'll hasten to add. None of them absolutely has to be played that way, but well, they're all built that way - 'kill things and take their stuff' is an extremely well known D&D-ism with good reason, generally speaking.
Mostly, yes [in theory]. However, using 3.0 material in 3.5, or vice versa, is something of a hassle. I don't recommend it. Pick one, and stick with it, unless you enjoy - or even truly don't mind - conversion work.
All editions of D&D are designed with physical - or at least visual (e.g., on computer) - accessories in mind, for the purpose of representing battlefields and the beings fighting on them. Again, you *can* go against this - and certainly, some do - but even so, I wouldn't recommend it. Especially if you're new to the system being used. It just makes things a heck of a lot easier most of the time, and honestly there isn't much of a downside (even the costs involved can be dramatically reduced by using counters, or even just a board and markers, whatever) to going this way. The stuff doesn't need to be used for non-combat scenes, of course, so yeah, it's just a convenient way of making battles easier to sort out. In my experiences with D&D, anyhow. Whatever works, naturally.
I think that WoTC 3E modules do tend to be heavily combat-oriented. An exception is Speaker in Dreams.
Interesting 3E modules that are less combat-oriented are the Penumbra modules published by Atlas Games (Three Days to Kill, Maiden Voyage, In the Belly of the Beast, The Last Dance, The Tide of Years, The Ebon Mirror, Unhallowed Halls, mabye one or two others the names of which I can't remember).
HelloChristian
First Post
Very cool. I've had a lot of fun writing LL material for my zine. Such a great little game. Soon I plan on getting Mutant Future!
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
I feel kind of guilty that I've only been downloading and printing the free PDFs, but the whole "lays flat" thing has really grown on me lately. I do plan to snag a copy of the hardcover once I get settled into my new job, though.
Basid D&D (Moldvay 1981 set or Mentzer 1983 set) only covers the 1st 3 levels of play. Labyrinth Lord is basically the same game (within the limits of what copyright & the OGL allow) but covers a full 20 levels or so, allowing for long-running campaigns, powerful magic etc. I would recommend that you get both that Basic set and a copy of Labyrinth Lord. Basic has slightly different Experience Point tables and in Basic Clerics don't get a spell at 1st level, those are the only real differences as far as I know.
There are lots of adventures and other resources useable for both of these on Dragonsfoot - dragonsfoot.org - the 'Basic' modules are 100% compatible, the AD&D ones 99% (AD&D has more character classes).
Personally I think there's plenty enough complexity in Basic/LL, but there are plenty of expansions available if eg you want a defined Skills system rather than attribute checks.
If you like more complex games, 3.5e D&D is good, and with its Skills system I think it's less combat-centric than 4e. Also, in 3.5e creating 1st level characters using just the Player's Handbook is quite easy, much easier than in 4e (IMO). What 3.5e does have is escalating complexity, especially over about 10th level it can become a chore I find. 4e's curve is much flatter. In 3.5e statting out NPCs and special monsters is a huge pain IMO, but the DMG gives sample NPC stats for all classes & levels, and you can stick to monsters straight out of the Monster Manual, of which there are hundreds, including some 'advanced' versions.
If 4e doesn't appeal to you, I'd get that Basic set (Mentzer Basic is the best introductory set ever published IMO), download Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy, and see if they look like what you want. If you want more complexity, get the 3.5e Players' Handbook. I am currently actually running a game using 3.5e PHB for PCs and Basic stats for the monsters (flipping Armour Class so it goes up from 10 instead of down from 9), and you could try that, but if you like 3.5e it's worth getting the DMG and MM too.
Edit: Re miniatures - I never found any need for minis with Basic/LL/AD&D etc. 3e/3.5e D&D and 4e D&D are minis focused and benefit from use of a battlemat and miniatures. 3e is just about useable without, if you run a low-combat campaign. If you don't like minis I would recommend against either 3.5e or (especially) 4e D&D.
Basic/LL etc actually reward avoidance of combat, which is highly lethal at low levels. In the standard mode of play, avoiding the monsters and getting the treasure by stealth, trickery etc is the best route to success.
Last edited:
I too have the 3e Starter set and agree wholeheartedly with your analysis - it's terrible.
Although the black dragon miniature is useful.There are certainly much better and much less combat oriented adventures available for 3e, though Wizards' official modules do tend to be highly combat-centric. Some third party publishers do less combat focused modules; but in general 3e (and 4e) assumes that most of a typical game session is taken up on lengthy tactical combat. If you want combat to be brief and to focus more on exploration and character interaction then Basic/Labyrinth Lord/etc would probably be better.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Which one was Speaker in Dreams? I might have played in it, but it's a long time ago.
[sblock]
Is it with a Mind Flayer?
[/sblock]
Similar Threads
